2

This question already has an answer here:

So I can't review for 2 days because of too many incorrect reviews. I just got to review an answer that was good. Just a good answer. Some explanation and a piece of code that matches the question. I clicked on: Looks OK(or whatever it is) and it gave me the warning that I wasn't paying attention and that it's a bad post. So I went to look what's wrong with the post and there was a comment with like 4 upvotes that said:

This is a stolen answer from: iOS automatically add hyphen in text field

How was I suppose to know this exactly? I assume this was the reason why it was deleted as well.

I've had other review audits as well where I said that it was a good post yet it wasn't but I still didn't get why. Like an answer that had 1 downvote and no comments, I still didn't get why it was a bad post.

Am I the only one that thinks that this should change?

|improve this question

marked as duplicate by gnat, Flyk, Martijn Pieters support Mar 19 '15 at 11:37

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    What should change exactly? In general, good reviewers typically won't be suspended due to failing too many audits. Maybe the odd one (such as your primary example), but only one failure won't get you suspended. Maybe in general you need to take more care. – Duncan Jones Mar 12 '15 at 10:30
  • @Duncan Maybe give some review audits that you can actually review normally? Like the one where someone copied an answer from another question, is basically impossible to review as bad. Maybe also give the reason why a bad post was deleted? – Loko Mar 12 '15 at 10:31
  • @Loko: reviews are picked automatically. Most review audits are less fuzzy; yet you managed to fail enough in a 30 day period that you got (also automatically) suspended for 2 days. 2 days isn't all that long, just be more careful in the future. – Martijn Pieters Mar 12 '15 at 10:36
  • @MartijnPieters I'm not complaining about being "banned" Im just saying some audits are just impossible – Loko Mar 12 '15 at 10:39
  • Yup, and we know that already. That's not going to change. – Martijn Pieters Mar 12 '15 at 10:40
  • @MartijnPieters Nice I just got another one after reviewing like 100 where someone was asking something about vertical alignment how to do something with vertical alignment and at the end he posted his blog. I marked it as Should be improved and I got a ban for a month cause it was 'spam'. I'm done with reviewing. Worst system I've ever seen tbh. – Loko Mar 27 '15 at 9:11
7

How was I suppose to know this exactly?

At 20 reviews a day limit, one has plenty time to do more thorough check of reviewed posts before clicking Looks OK.

I for one always open a post in a separate browser window when I find myself wondering "what the heck could be the reason to flag it" - this is a major help in reviewing copied answers. Sometimes these are already commented as copies, but I check in these cases anyway, to ensure that commenter didn't miss something.

And if someone thinks this is too much work, well, There is no shame in using “Skip”.

|improve this answer
1

The review system is never going to be perfect. Since posts are selected based on an algorithm, there will inevitably be false negatives.

Your specific example is unfortunate and you couldn't have been expected to know it was wrong. However, that represents just one failed audit and shouldn't be enough to get you banned for two days.

Perhaps you need to be slightly more careful with your other reviews to avoid triggering a failed-review threshold and getting a ban. Perhaps filter based on tags you are particularly confident in reviewing.

|improve this answer
  • The last sentence is a good tip. I know my example is extremely unfortunate and I get that I made other "mistakes" with audits which I still didn't agree on. I wanted to know if it's really as bad as I experienced it. – Loko Mar 12 '15 at 10:41
  • @Loko I think the opinion on the audits will depend on who you ask. If you just base it on complaints on Meta sites, you would think that the audit system is terribly broken and there are never good audits. But considering that most reviewers probably see 1 or 2 audits a day (observational evidence only), you'll realize that most audits are easy (or at least easy to detected if you are paying attention) and few people come to meta to praise the audit system. – psubsee2003 Mar 12 '15 at 12:08
  • @psubsee2003 I've seen alot of audits which are just clear that it's a terrible post, but some are really freaking hard. Very subjective or impossible. – Loko Mar 12 '15 at 12:10
  • @Loko that's why i said most. There are plenty of exceptions, like the one you found here, but in terms of percentages, they are a small subset. If you have gotten a lot, you might be unlucky.... but that's why the skip button is there. If you just don't know, then skip it and let someone else deal with it – psubsee2003 Mar 12 '15 at 12:14
  • @psubsee2003 Yup I will. Thanks. – Loko Mar 12 '15 at 12:25

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .